Editing Politeness (section)

==Criticism of Brown and Levinson's typology==
Brown and Levinson's theory of politeness has been criticised as not being universally valid, by linguists working with [[East Asian languages|East-Asian languages]], including Japanese. Matsumoto<ref>{{cite journal|last=Matsumoto|first=Y.|year=1988|title=Reexamination of the universality of Face: Politeness phenomena in Japanese|journal=Journal of Pragmatics|volume=12|issue=4 |pages=403–426|doi=10.1016/0378-2166(88)90003-3 }}</ref> and Ide<ref>{{cite journal|last=Ide|first=S.|year=1989|title=Formal forms and discernment: two neglected aspects of universals of linguistic politeness|journal=Multilingua|volume=8|number=2–3|pages=223–248|doi=10.1515/mult.1989.8.2-3.223 |s2cid=144575072 }}</ref> claim that Brown and Levinson assume the speaker's volitional use of language, which allows the speaker's creative use of [[Face (sociological concept)|face]]-maintaining strategies toward the addressee. In East Asian cultures like Japan, politeness is achieved not so much on the basis of volition as on discernment ({{transliteration|ja|wakimae}}, finding one's place), or prescribed [[social norms]]. {{transliteration|ja|Wakimae}} is oriented towards the need for acknowledgment of the positions or roles of all the participants as well as adherence to formality norms appropriate to the particular situation.